Sayre v. Tompkins
Decision Date | 31 October 1856 |
Citation | 23 Mo. 443 |
Parties | SAYRE, Appellant, v. TOMPKINS et al., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. There is no equity to restrain by injunction the collection of a school tax, the assessment of which is illegal and void.
2. In order that a neighborhood, situated in two or more townships, may be formed into a separate school district, under section 8 of article 4 of the act of February 24th, 1853, (Sess. Acts, 1853, p. 160,) a majority of the inhabitants of the proposed district should unite in the application to the school commissioner.
Appeal from Lewis Circuit Court.
Plaintiff sought in this action to restrain Tompkins, constable, &c., from selling certain personal property of plaintiff under an assessment of a school tax, claimed by plaintiff to have been illegally made and void; also to restrain the trustees of the school district, who are made parties defendant, from taking any steps against plaintiff to collect the said tax. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the injunction was dissolved. The finding of the facts by the court is as follows: &c.
T. Polk, for appellant.
I. The power to levy and collect a tax, as claimed in this case, being derived exclusively from a special statute, that statute, in all its requisitions, must be strictly pursued. (Morton v. Reed, 6 Mo. 64; Reed v. Morton, 9 Mo. 868.)
II. In order to form a neighborhood, composed of two or more townships, into a school district, at least a majority of the qualified voters of such neighborhood must make application to the school commissioner of their county for this purpose. (Sess. Acts, 1853, p. 160, art. 4, sec. 8.) But here the court expressly finds that within the metes and bounds of this neighborhood there resided at the time eighty-one qualified voters, of whom, however, only nineteen united in making the application for the establishment of the school district.
III. No legal notice was given for the time and place of meeting for each township composing a part of the proposed district. The finding of the court, in this case, does not show that any such notice as is required was ever given. On the contrary, it shows that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wood
...of this state. Lockwood v. City of St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; Leslie v. Same, 47 Mo. 474; Town of Warrensburg v. Miller, 77 Mo. 56; Sayre v. Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443; Bank v. Kansas City, 73 Mo. 555. But in this case the bill negatives all idea of this inspection law affecting the property of plaint......
-
Second Nat Bank of Titusville, Pennsylvania v. Caldwell
... ... 25 N.Y. 312; Weaver v ... State, 39 Ala. 535; Cook Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 35 Ill ... 460; McDonald v. Murphree, 45 Miss. 705; Sayre v. Tompkins, ... 23 Mo. 443; First Nat. Bank v. Meredith, 44 Mo. 500; Barrow ... v. Davis, 46 Mo. 394; McPike v. Pew, 48 Mo. 525 ... [ J ] ... ...
-
State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood
... ... Lockwood v. St. Louis, 24 ... Mo. 20; Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 474; ... Warrensburg v. Miller, 77 Mo. 56; Sayre v ... Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443; Bank v. Kansas City, 73 ... Mo. 555.] But in this case the bill negatives all idea of ... this inspection law ... ...
-
Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage & Levee District
... ... of the defendant drainage district. Savings Inst. v ... Board of Education, 75 Mo. 408; Rice v ... McClelland, 58 Mo. 116; Sayre v. Tompkins, 23 ... Mo. 443; Speer v. Board of Co. Com'rs, 88 F ... 749; Herring v. Irrigation Dist., 95 F. 705; ... Miller v. Irrigation ... ...